Editorial: Raise the cap on charters

Saturday

May 30, 2009 at 12:01 AMMay 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM

The latest study of public education in Massachusetts cites progress over the last 15 years and a stubborn gap between the state's highest- and lowest-performing schools. It makes a handful of sensible recommendations, including one for which there is growing momentum: Raising the cap on new charter schools.

The latest study of public education in Massachusetts cites progress over the last 15 years and a stubborn gap between the state's highest- and lowest-performing schools. It makes a handful of sensible recommendations, including one for which there is growing momentum: Raising the cap on new charter schools.

The study, commissioned by MassINC, a respected, nonpartisan think tank, concludes that the Education Reform Act of 1993 has had mixed success. A big increase in state aid narrowed the school funding gap between communities. The MCAS tests set tough new standards, encouraging schools to give extra attention to struggling students. Massachusetts students now lead the nation in standardized test scores and are at or near the top in math and science when compared with students around the world.

But the achievement gap between students at the highest-funded schools and the lowest-funded schools persists, according to two Tufts professors who crunched the numbers for MassINC. The gap has been exacerbated by an increased concentration of low-income students and students with limited English in the lowest-performing districts.

The report's recommendations are familiar: longer school days and school years, merit pay for the most effective teachers, incentives to get the best teachers in struggling schools, intervention for students lagging in the early grades, cost savings by consolidating administrative functions, and putting teachers' health benefits under the state's Group Insurance Commission.

Most of these ideas have faced resistance from teachers' unions, and some are expensive at a time when budgets are being cut and teachers laid off. There has also been resistance to charter schools, which were allowed under Education Reform but limited by a provision that caps the amount of district funding diverted to charter schools at 9 percent of school spending.

That provision has put districts at or near the cap in such cities as Boston, Holyoke, Springfield and Lowell - exactly the places where new charter schools are needed most. Research funded through The Boston Foundation has found charter schools outperform traditional or pilot schools at improving student achievement. Almost all charters operate on longer school days, provide more intensive individual attention and foster more interaction between school and parents.

The denial of these benefits to students in struggling districts because of the arbitrary cap "borders on criminal," Paul Grogan, president of The Boston Foundation, told a recent legislative hearing.

Gov. Deval Patrick's budget calls for raising the cap for some districts, but includes cumbersome and unnecessary conditions on new charters. Neither the House nor the Senate budgets lift the cap, but there is movement toward appointing a study panel that could fashion consensus.

There is also pressure from Washington. President Barack Obama strongly supports charter schools, and his education secretary warned last week that states that block charter school expansion will be at a disadvantage in applying for billions of dollars in grants for school innovation included in federal stimulus legislation.

Patrick says Massachusetts is well-positioned to compete for that grant money, and our schools could certainly use it. But it won't be headed this way if tired Beacon Hill politics are seen to be stifling the innovations charter schools bring.

The best reason to raise the cap, however, is the thousands of students on waiting lists for charter slots in school districts on the low end of the achievement gap. They can't wait indefinitely for the political stalemate over charter schools to break, and they shouldn't have to.